First let me say that John’s blog post is indicative of what I like about John. He’s got guts to tell us what he’s thinking and to open up conversations that are dicey and risky especially for ministers. This was John’s post and below is my response. 

Thanks John for talking about this. This debate is of course touchy as it connects to other subjects. It orbits around the question of Christian assertions regarding historical narratives. Did Jesus assert his imminent return, and by imminent we assume a matter of decades if not millennia? Did the apostles (and brother James) assume this? Did Paul? If jesus did, was he wrong? What are the implications of that?

It also gets into the question of the assertion of a future resurrection narrative. Let’s assume the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Was that a strange historical anomaly or should we imagine, like Paul seems too that it is the first fruits of a general resurrection?

Do we read these things through contemporary skepticism? Isn’t 2k years enough to convince us Jesus was wrong and the Xian narrative assertions bankrupt? Even if we embrace skepticism on both ends and say “well maybe it could happen but we shouldn’t embrace it sufficiently to alter contemporary behavior based on a weak theory?”

I read you here as saying “embracing a future narrative of the second coming undermines activistic motivation to improve the present world situation.”

In evaluating that assumption I’d have to grant that some theological systems, such as dispensational communities that emphasize a lifeboat mentality to escape a disposable world certainly supports your thesis. However, I suspect if an apostle’s creed assumption of the second coming is the majority Christian position throughout history, and if we can in fact see that work to better humanity’s lot also runs strongly through the Christian tradition (generosity towards slaves and dispossessed in the Roman Empire, monastic hospitality throughout the middle ages, the abolition movement, etc.) It doesn’t appear that embracing a second coming impairs Christian works of generosity, service and humanitarian betterment. If anything I’d suggest that contemporary dispensational world flight is a theological aboration.

I also think the position you seem to suggest reveals the assumptions of the culture of powerful, western activism, that what really changes the world is the kind of power based, coercive activism. One’s value in this world, the meaning of one’s life is dependent upon their capacity to contribute to human betterment. Most of humanity has lacked this level of power or capacity. What does that say about their lives? Should the weak, infirm or poor in the world simply give up and relieve the planet of their carbon footprint? John’s admonitions to the 7 churches in Asia Minor were pretty foolish. How might they imagine that in their poverty and suffering any good would come from belief or faithfulness?

I’d assert an embrace of a historical, interventionist rescue actually motivates those who realize they, in the view of the world, have little to offer. That acts of small faithfulness are not overlooked or lost to the view of broad, sweeping history. That the maker of the universe sees shoveling the snow from the shut-in’s steps and hears the prayers of the paralytic. That the casserole or cup of cold water given in Jesus’ name is not lost to the decay of history.

Of course if we find that a healthy anticipation of Jesus’ return or the resurrection actually motivates people towards greater charity in our skeptical view this might suggest that we encourage people to believe it for pragmatic reasons, but if this is a trick, it won’t work. if we imagine this opiate of the people somehow helps them, but it is still a drug, then we set ourselves up as a class of knowers above the ignorant herd of commoners. It only works if you really believe it.

If skepticism cuts both ways, and we can afford to doubt all assertions, then why not embrace the better story and doubt some of our doubts. 🙂

Thanks for putting the topic forward. pvk